https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19160496.live-planning-inquiry-grundy-fold-mansions-begins/
 

So what we thinking, I would love to see them all knocked down but can’t see it.

Leave them, but some form of financial penalty to the builders.

The site had buildings on it previously iirc, and such places should be reused for housing.

They’re an eyesore 

If I had that kind of money to spend on a house I sure as hell wouldn't want my neighbours that close. Antisocial bastard that I am. 

35 minutes ago, bolton_blondie said:

If I had that kind of money to spend on a house I sure as hell wouldn't want my neighbours that close. Antisocial bastard that I am. 

Exactly this. Don't get me wrong, i get on great with my neighbours, but if i had the money i'd probably choose to live somewhere with no neighbours within 500 yards.

Broke the rules, so should come down.

Precedent on Regent Road a few years ago.

1 hour ago, Elson said:

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19160496.live-planning-inquiry-grundy-fold-mansions-begins/
 

So what we thinking, I would love to see them all knocked down but can’t see it.

I want them knocking down because  of the builder who thought he’d just be able to give a backhander to the council after he knowingly ignored to submitted plans.

Some of the people who’d bought the houses knew what was going on too, so are complicit.

Regardless of all that, he’s left loads of trades unpaid and is an arrogant fucker.

Alledgedly. Of coursex

22 minutes ago, Spider said:

I want them knocking down because  of the builder who thought he’d just be able to give a backhander to the council after he knowingly ignored to submitted plans.

Some of the people who’d bought the houses knew what was going on too, so are complicit.

Regardless of all that, he’s left loads of trades unpaid and is an arrogant fucker.

Alledgedly. Of coursex

Would that be the same builder who owns one of the offending houses by any chance?

One plot had a 30% bigger footprint than allowed.

That’s ridiculous 

Feel sorry for the people that bought homes. It’s a right shitter.

Id let it go as they look alright and I don’t think they swallow up the land.

It's a dangerous precedent if he's allowed to get away with it.  I'm not too fussed on the decision though so long as there's no impact on the public purse.  The council cant always afford to risk an appeal.

1 minute ago, Duck Egg said:

It's a dangerous precedent if he's allowed to get away with it.  I'm not too fussed on the decision though so long as there's no impact on the public purse.  The council cant always afford to risk an appeal.

They don't get away with anything if they fined and punished adequately. Wont do it again if no profit.

Not sure what the law permits as punishment but purely from a pragmatic/environmental point of view, leaving them is better than demolition and rebuild.

Built them too big. Whoever made the decision to do that took a liberty. If they had built them the right size then folk would have been in them years ago.

 

If I was living in the row of houses facing the site then I wouldn't have been happy that my view had been polluted by these houses. And bigger than planned.

2 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Built them too big. Whoever made the decision to do that took a liberty. If they had built them the right size then folk would have been in them years ago.

 

If I was living in the row of houses facing the site then I wouldn't have been happy that my view had been polluted by these houses. And bigger than planned.

We know all that. In this case it doesn't really impinge on neighbours, so that factor doesn't come into it.

 

Seems a strange submission to an enquiry, "enforcement notice issued by the council to demolish the homes was excessive and too harsh to remedy any breach in planning regulations" 

The law is clear on what grounds you can appeal an enforcement notice and the only one they can be thinking about is that "that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach;" 

Pull em darn

33 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

We know all that. In this case it doesn't really impinge on neighbours, so that factor doesn't come into it.

 

I've spoke to the one of the people facing these illegal houses. It was a factor for them.

Building on the land as agreed would of been fine as was a building (farm) before.

But to build something not in the plots agreed and in one case 33% bigger if I was in one of those houses next to Bob Smithy I would be unhappy.

29 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I've spoke to the one of the people facing these illegal houses. It was a factor for them.

They have no right to a view

1 hour ago, Nowack said:

Seems a strange submission to an enquiry, "enforcement notice issued by the council to demolish the homes was excessive and too harsh to remedy any breach in planning regulations" 

The law is clear on what grounds you can appeal an enforcement notice and the only one they can be thinking about is that "that the steps required by the notice to be taken, or the activities required by the notice to cease, exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control which may be constituted by those matters or, as the case may be, to remedy any injury to amenity which has been caused by any such breach;" 

Depends if they are trying to argue that there is a better solution than demolition, then in their eyes the enforcement notice was excessive

12 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

They have no right to a view

Indeed. I once scored at Greenmount for my lad’s U13 game. Alongside me was the home scorer. During a lull in play I commented on the wind turbines on the hills. Pointing out that they look majestic and ‘arty’. 
I thought he was about to shove his pencil up my nose! Apparently, he had a picture window in his bedroom where he used to sit with his Sunday morning brew and just stare. 
Well, shall we change the subject then? 😀

Allow the houses to stay but Bolton Council arranges a free raffle for anyone with a Bolton postcode.

Obviously Cliff Morris will “win” one so everyone else must have him as a neighbour.

19 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Depends if they are trying to argue that there is a better solution than demolition, then in their eyes the enforcement notice was excessive

The argument on these terms is for example you built it too high and therefore to remedy the breach you take it down a few courses and not demolish the whole thing as ordered. That doesn`t seem applicable in this case.   

2 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

They have no right to a view

Never said they did. But they were entitled to more of a view than the one they got.

I read that the development was supposed to be courtyard style, not what I'm seeing in the pictures.

Amazing that people can invest the thick end of a million without fully checking the planning approvals, I thought this would have been automatic with every conveyancing practice, they always bang on about FENSA stuff and HETAS etc. etc.

There is a precedent over here, a bloke I know lost his cushy number with a Lincoln house builder when he built a row of new houses in town 1 metre forward of the building line and they had to come down, thankfully before anyone took ownership.

I have only ever been involved in one planning hearing, it was fascinating and I was impressed with the Inspector.

Pull the cunts down